I agree with the line of reasoning here. However, I’d like to present some points of clarification.
The ultimate goal of this proposal was to provide an opportunity for the community to reach alignment on whether we wanted to move forward with the agreement at hand - and separate out what didn’t feel loyal to the nature of that discussion.
This proposal is not intended to circumvent any informal due process expected by the culture here, nor to rush any binding actions (especially since that wouldn’t be possible on snapshot alone).
What this proposal is deciding is the mechanism for unifying two DAOs, should there continue to be consensus to do so. Any legitimacy and minimally-binding properties this proposal document may hold are continually decided by the community via their ongoing participation in the process it outlines. One might argue that the statement that ‘this proposal is intended only to agree in principle’ is redundant. Furthermore, the lack of an explicit amendment window only opens the door to increased flexibility for near-future adjustments - flexibility that translates directly to a wider decision matrix and therefore more voter empowerment.
It really goes without saying, but: a merger is huge. A merger between two DAOs (one of which boasts the largest-TVL DeFi platform)? Massive. The fact that it may take multiple steps involving corrections, amendments, decisions, and changes should not come as a surprise to anyone involved.
If this action feels rushed, it may be because I felt personally motivated by the mounting pressure of the controversy surrounding the (sidetracked) topic of compensation in the previous thread. I grew concerned that Tribe members may be forced into a Pareto-inefficient vote that, diluted with outside interest, would not fully represent the true nature of the governance action at stake. Therefore, moving quickly to officially separate those topics, I believe, was in the best interest of the community.